The first event was a July 12 forum sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on issues surrounding the cultured meat grown from in vitro animals cell culture.

A big newsmaker at that event was Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union, the advocacy division for the iconic Consumer Reports. A part of Hansen’s testimony disclosed a CU survey showing the public pretty well rejects “clean meat” as the name for these new products.

“By an overwhelming margin, our survey found that consumers want clear labels identifying meat produced in the lab from cultured animal cells,” Hansen said. “Federal regulators should ensure these emerging food products are clearly labeled so consumers can make informed choices for their families and easily distinguish them from conventional meat.”

A plurality in the CU survey favored calling it “lab-grown meat.”

For the Good Food Institute, which supports making meat from cultured animal cells, that hurt. It accused CU of “misuse of basic consumer research.”

Writing on his blog, Good Food Institute Co-founder and Executive Director Bruce Friedrich said “lab-grown meat” comes up on top of polls that provide no context. He says CU asked consumers about labeling for “food produced in a laboratory from animals cells to look and taste like meat.”

Friedrich says because of the way the question was framed, no one should be surprised that the top reply was “lab-grown meat.” He goes on to charge that CU used “push polling to its limits.”

Push polling refers to a tactic often employed during political campaigning. In that setting, it involves an individual or organization attempting to manipulate or alter prospective voters’ views or beliefs under the guise of conducting an opinion poll.

Friedrich was also critical of CU for not making its survey questionnaire available on its website.

Finally, Friedrich took exception to depicting meat from cultured animal cells as “lab-grown.” He says like beer and cheerios, all processed food starts out in a lab before moving out to production facilities like breweries.

This dust-up probably means the naming dispute for this new product isn’t not going to be settled for a long time. Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, this week signaled that plant-based products labeled as “milk” or “yogurt” on grocery shelves will soon be a thing of the past.That would be a bonanza for the dairy industry, which has long sought to defend a “standard of identity” for “real milk.”How the issue will play out for meat remains to be seen.

The Good Food Institute people favor “clean meat” because they are aware of the hill they will have to climb if the words “cultured animal cells” create the same consumer suspicions as the phrase “genetically modified.”

The second event was the July 16 release by Los Angeles-based Mercy for Animals of more disturbing video involving alleged animal abuse at Tosh Farms in Kentucky. This one first went down as a routine undercover exercise by Mercy with video of mistreated pigs and connecting Tosh as a supplier to JBS Swift’s Louisville plant.

“Based on our initial review, we have suspended shipments from that supplier site pending a full investigation,” said a JBS spokesman.

Mercy filed a complaint against Tosh with the Simpson County District Attorney, but it was not clear if Tosh broke Kentucky law. Tosh said it planned staff re-training, but said its veterinarian found no real problems.

Only then did the political ramifications begin.

Mercy was accused of playing it’s Kentucky abuse investigation to sway a California ballot initiative. At play on the Golden State ballot is Proposition 12 would expand living space for pigs, calves and egg-laying hens. Egg-laying hens would need to be placed in cage-free housing. Breeding pigs and calves raised for veal would be required to have at least 24 and 43 square feet of floor space, respectively. If approved, the new requirements would become effective in 2022.

Claims that Prop 12 would prevent the type of abuse shown in the Mercy video of the Kentucky pig farm are “utterly false,” according to Bradley Miller, national director of the Humane Farming Association, and spokesperson for Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud.

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is also opposing Prop 12, saying it does not include expanded housing for chickens.

Mercy’s Matt Rice told California media that while state voters overwhelming oppose putting animals in tiny cages, it happens out of state.

In 2008, California voters overwhelming adopted Proposition 2. It took effect in 2015. The law requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow the animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

Exceptions are made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days are included.

Federal courts have upheld provisions added by the California Legislature to apply the state’s requirements to anyone selling eggs in the state.

]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/07/political-impact-lingers-after-two-main-events-in-meat-industry/feed/0Public overwhelmingly favors term ‘lab-grown’ over ‘clean’ meathttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/07/public-overwhelmingly-favors-lab-grown-meat-over-industry-term-clean-meat/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/07/public-overwhelmingly-favors-lab-grown-meat-over-industry-term-clean-meat/#respondMon, 16 Jul 2018 04:00:46 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=152420Continue Reading]]>Consumer Reports, published by the 7 million-member nonprofit Consumers Union, last week reported on survey results showing the public expects laboratory-produced meat from cultured animal cells to be clearly labeled. The results show the public favors different language that those pushing the new products.

“Federal regulators should ensure these emerging food products are clearly labeled so consumers can make informed choices for their families and easily distinguish them from conventional meat.”

The Consumer Reports phone survey found that 49 percent said it should be labeled as “meat, but accompanied by an explanation about how it is produced,” while another 40 percent said it should be labeled as “something other than meat.”

Only five percent thought it should be labeled as meat “without any further explanation.”

This new technology, which was subject of aJuly 12 FDA forum, involves taking cells from a food animal and getting those cells to grow and differentiate in a suitable growth medium that contains vitamins, lipids, amino acids, and growth hormones, including fetal calf serum.

During his testimony at the FDA meeting, Hansen noted that the vats in which the lab meat is cultured contain animal cells in a large nutrient solution, which can become contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, viruses, fungi and mycoplasma.

Consumers Union has urged federal regulators to require pre-market safety testing of cell-cultured meat products. The consumer group warned that the lab meat industry should not be allowed to take advantage of the “generally recognized as safe (GRAS)” loophole which allows food producers to avoid getting approval for a new food substance as a food additive.

Under the GRAS process, a company that wants to introduce a new substance into food can evaluate the substance’s safety through its own small panel of scientists. The company is not required to notify the FDA of its review.

Consumers Union is not the first to subject lab-produced cultured meat, which remains largely in a research and development stage rather than production, to survey research.

According to the North American Meat Institute, the Good Food Institute hit upon “clean meat” as the marketing term for the prospective product after conducting at least 28 surveys, focus groups, and other public opinion studies.

Investors in the new lab-meat are said to include traditional meat industry giants Tyson and Cargill along with billionaires like Bill Gates and Richard Branson. One lab-grown hamburger created in 2013 was said to have cost $300,000. The first pricy lab-grown meat could reach the market in about three years.

]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/07/public-overwhelmingly-favors-lab-grown-meat-over-industry-term-clean-meat/feed/0Make leafy greens “high risk” and chase them down quickly, say consumer groupshttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/05/make-leafy-greens-high-risk-and-chase-them-down-quickly-say-consumer-groups/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/05/make-leafy-greens-high-risk-and-chase-them-down-quickly-say-consumer-groups/#respondFri, 25 May 2018 04:03:49 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=151079Continue Reading]]>There’s no indication yet that anyone is the least bit embarrassed about the failure to yet identify the precise source of an E. coli O157: H7 outbreak involving at least 32 states and four Canadian provinces. But nine consumer and food safety groups have stepped forward to demand that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb add regulations within the next six months “for comprehensive and rapid traceability of produce, including leafy greens.”

In a May 24 letter to Gottlieb, the groups said all FDA needs to do is to “implement the long-overdue directive laid out by Congress in the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) requiring the agency to issue a proposed rule establishing recordkeeping requirements for high-risk foods.”

“This will improve the agency’s ability to quickly trace the source of foods linked to an outbreak of foodborne illness, so it can initiate swift recalls,” said the consumer and food safety groups in the letter.

Romaine lettuce is grown in the Yuma, AZ region is the likely source of the 172 E. coli illnesses in the U.S. and at least another half dozen in Canada. FDA has only been able to identify Yuma’s Harrison Farms as the grower and sole source of whole-head romaine lettuce that sickened eight inmates at an Alaskan correctional facility. It does not know where in the supply chain that contamination occurred.

“The FDA should also immediately provide advice and communication to the leafy greens industry on existing requirements and best practices to enhance traceability,” the group letter adds.

More than two weeks ago, industry representatives went public with their criticisms of the FDA investigation, which they said was shunning offers of help from growers. Jennifer McEntire, United Fresh Produce Association vice president of food safety, described the FDA’s investigation as “mystifying.” She said allied associations and their members had provided “information about processing and handling as well as product shipment data” to FDA.

Both FDA and state officials have repeatedly told Food Safety News that investigations of the current outbreak, which has recorded one death, and others are slowed by hand-written records, a lack of uniformity in traceability labeling, and incomplete shipping and receiving records. The consumer groups say existing recordkeeping requires only “one step forward, one step back” records that result in a “tangled web of inconsistent and inadequate” information for those tracking outbreaks.

Section 204 of the FSMA provides for enhanced record requirements for “high risk” foods.

“The repeated outbreaks linked to produce and leafy greens since passage of FSMA leave no doubt that these products belong in the “high-risk” category, according to the consumer and food safety groups. The six-page letter was signed by the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Food & Water Watch: National Consumers League; The Pew Charitable Trusts; STOP Foodborne Illness; and the Trust for America’s Health.

The groups expressed trust in high tech.

“Current technology makes it possible for retailers to track and trace products with extraordinary speed and accuracy. Retailers using advanced technology, such as blockchain, now report they can identify the origin of certain produce shipments in as little as 2.2 seconds,” they told Gottlieb. “Given these advances, it is no longer acceptable that the FDA has no means to swiftly determine where a bag of lettuce was grown or packaged.”

Another unrelated leafy green outbreak that also went unsolved occurred shortly before the current romaine-related outbreak.

Without the action, the new requirements under the National Organic Program would have taken effect today. Meat and poultry products labeled as “USDA Organic” would fall under the proposed Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP), which mandate specific animal welfare practices.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s subagency, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), announced the implementation delay on Nov. 9, saying the 180-day postponement until 2018 is necessary because it discovered “a material error the record.” The AMS promised additional cost and benefit analysis before any “final decision on the direction of the rule.”

The notice says AMS “discovered a significant, material error in the mathematical calculation of the benefits estimates.”

“With the material error, the regulatory impact analysis presented costs and benefits in a table that could be reasonably interpreted to conclude that benefits were likely to exceed costs,” but the agency now believes the calculations were flawed, according to the AMS announcement.

The AMS is re-opening to comments the question of “calculation of benefits,” regulatory policy principals, and whether the Organic Farming Policy Act (OFPA) is limited to health care practices. Once the notice is published in the Federal Register, a comment docket will be available on the regulations.gov website.

Today’s notice says USDA received more than 47,000 comments supporting OLPP implementation as written, but more than 34,600 of those were form letters, according to current agency leaders. An estimated 350 organic livestock producers with sales of $1.95 billion and industry groups like the Organic Trade Association are among those wanting the OLPP implemented as drafted during the Obama Administration.

The implementation delay has already been blasted by Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports.

“There is no justification for delaying these standards,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union.

“Consumers who buy organic expect farmers to follow strict standards, including rules to help ensure the health and well-being of animals. But without this rule, consumers will have no way of knowing if eggs and chicken labeled organic come from birds that were able to roam outside or whether their only access was a tiny porch.”

Some veterinarians and individual farmers weighed in with comments about biosecurity and food safety risks and potentially higher avian mortality rates for chickens allowed to roam outdoors. They also expressed doubts about the benefits of the regulations being worth the costs and suggested the standards be outside the authority of the National Organic Program.

Only “producers and handlers” in the voluntary National Organic Program would fall under the OLPP, which mandates how they must treat livestock and poultry to “ensure their wellbeing,” according to supporters.

The policy initiative was originally announced in the final 24 hours of the Obama Administration.

]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/11/usda-delays-obamas-organic-livestock-standards-for-review/feed/0Food safety insecurity used as a hook against regulatory reformhttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/04/food-safety-insecurity-used-as-a-hook-against-regulatory-reform/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/04/food-safety-insecurity-used-as-a-hook-against-regulatory-reform/#respondWed, 12 Apr 2017 04:19:57 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=139213Continue Reading]]>Each side has just the congressional recess left to practice its hyperbole for the coming Senate fight over how regulations will be used across government. It’s going to get nasty. And confusing. The practice of giving the other side’s bill a dirty name is now a common tactic.

Since the Regulatory Accountability Act passed the House by a vote of 238-to-183 in January, the collection of consumer and environmental groups opposing the bill have taken to calling it the “Filthy Food Act.”

It’s far from certain, however, that the new Regulatory Accountability Act would translate into weakened federal food safety standards. It is, after all, about how new regulations might be imposed, not about changes to any of the 47,661 rules put in place since 2001, including 1,062 “major new rules” that each cost the economy $100 million or more each year.

Since the 1970s, agencies have had to keep track of the costs and benefits of regulations and Government Accountability Office dutifully keeps track of all the data, which is a said to impose $2 trillion a year on the economy.

The new Regulatory Accounting Act would put agencies through more hoops in the regulatory process. More were added the 1980s, but it’s hard to say that slowed the process. Congress likes leaving the details to the agencies.

The new Regulatory Accounting Act calls for more attention to the economic impact on small business, and calls for indirect and cumulative impacts of new regulation to be taken into account when new regulations are being proposed.

Agencies promulgating rules would be required to come up with alternatives to proposed rules to minimize any adverse economic impact or maximize any beneficially significant economic impact on small entities. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, the agency landlords for most of the 640 million acres owned by the U.S. government, are required to generate business –friendly alternatives in their own planning.

Current food safety rules were adopted after bipartisan approval of the Food Safety Modernization Act and a 5-year rule making process that FDA conducted with stakeholders, sometimes reversing directions to maintain consensus. Opponents of the Regulatory Accountability Act says the current food safety rules would not have survived “never-ending reviews and layers upon layers of wasteful Congressional and judicial red tape.”

However, there was Congressional involvement and judicial review, especially over deadline dates for the various rules.

Several consumer/environmental groups that are often involved in food safety issues have written several companies also often involved in food safety to persuade them to oppose the Regulatory Accountability Act when it comes to the Senate in May.

The “open letter” went out to Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, Coca-Cola, CVS Health, Domino’s Pizza, General Mills, PepsiCo, Target, Walmart, and Yum! Bands. “Food safety rules help reduce the risks posed by pathogens, additives, and pesticides,” says the letter. “But the “Filthy Food Act” passed by the House would create an unprecedented regulatory gauntlet through which no food safety rule or guidance could pass.”

Signing the letter were representatives of Food Policy Action, Food & Water Watch, Environmental Working Group, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Putting aside whether the new law would truly be a “regulatory gauntlet” for regulations, some significant elements are included. One would repeal the so-called “Chevron” doctrine, so named for a 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. that gave deference to agency legal interpretations when their decisions are challenged.

Also billion dollar rules would not take effect until timely filed litigation challenging their promulgation is resolved. It also beefs up the existing prohibition on federal agency lobbying for their own rules.

The consumer/environmental groups claim the new Regulatory Accountability Act “would require officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other agencies to seek out the least costly, and not the most beneficial, regulatory approach to food safety problems…”

“Manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants generally take food safety serious, which is why they should not stand by while their trade associations dismantle the food safety system,” said CSPI president Michael F. Jacobson. “Extremists like (White House chief strategist) Steve Bannon may sneer at what he calls the ‘administrative state,” but that’s generally what’s keeping E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria out of our food supply.”

Jacobson is inviting the food companies “to work cooperatively with us to defeat this reckless and irresponsible piece of legislation.”

]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/04/food-safety-insecurity-used-as-a-hook-against-regulatory-reform/feed/0Third-party auditor certification: Not the only tool in the toolkithttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/06/127208/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/06/127208/#respondMon, 06 Jun 2016 05:07:21 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=127208Continue Reading]]>Enough went into the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to make the food industry queasy, but the new law’s limited reliance on third-party auditors is still enough to make consumer advocates feel about the same way — at least for a while. The FSMA’s final rule on Accredited Third-Party Certification means the private auditors that the food industry has used for decades are now playing an official role in global food safety. To be sure their role is limited. According to FDA, third-party certifications may be used by importers only to establish eligibility for participation in the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP), or when requested by FDA to prevent potentially harmful food from reaching U.S. consumers. “An auditor is not an inspector and an audit is not an inspection,” explained Sandra Eskin, food safety director for the Pew Charitable Trusts. “FSMA does not direct FDA to outsource its inspection or enforcement authority to private entities.” Eskin’s comments came during an FDA outreach session when the rule was still a draft. FSMA marks the first time, she noted, that FDA “has directed as part of its food import safety oversight to rely on the findings and determinations of an approved list of private or third-party auditors.” Around the time Congress was passing the FSMA, private auditors gave rosy grades to a Georgia peanut processing plant and cantaloupe growers in Colorado. In short order both the processor and grower were involved in two of the deadliest outbreaks of foodborne disease so far in the 21st century. Ami Gadhia, senior policy counsel for the Consumers Union, said those were “upsetting examples” to be building the new rule around. Shortly before those tragic events, a study of the grading practices of eight auditing companies found the auditors being hired by the food industry rarely give a bad mark. On average, 93.5 percent gave scores between 90 and 100 percent. Only 1 out of 100 companies being audited, on average, failed to obtain certification. “Perhaps based on a desire to be hired again, auditors are handling out A’s like candy on halloween,” food safety attorney Dave Babcock said. Third-party auditors, however, gained a role in the FSMA because that’s what Congress wanted. “Congress has come up with a framework that applies in very limited circumstances where Congress has felt that a quality, reliable third-party audit should pay a part in the public assurance system for food safety,” said Mike Taylor, who ran the FSMA rule-making. Taylor also said the third-party auditors will be far from being the “only tool in the toolkit.” FDA’s rapidly expanding global regulatory role pretty much makes the days of relying on any one-thing a thing of the past. The agency is responsible for regulating food bound for the U.S. from 150 countries, from more than 250,000 facilities and 130,000 importers. Americans purchase about 50 percent of their fruit, 20 percent of their fresh vegetables, and 80 percent of their seafood from production beyond U.S. borders. “Border and port inspections are highly visible events that deliver a strong message that the American food supply is routinely being monitored, “ Patricia Buck, director of Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, told the outreach session. She noted FDA built new global regulations around the previous import rules for seafood and juice, which are subject to verification. The final rule gives FDA authority to accredit a third-party auditor quickly under certain limited circumstances. It also includes conflict of interest safeguards and certain international standards. FDA also might rely upon foreign governments or their food safety regulatory authorities or a private third party. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/06/127208/feed/0Safe Food Coalition says safe handling labels need a rewritehttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/06/food-safety-coalition-says-safe-handling-labels-need-a-rewrite/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/06/food-safety-coalition-says-safe-handling-labels-need-a-rewrite/#respondThu, 02 Jun 2016 05:01:37 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=127082Continue Reading]]>Seven well-known consumer groups acting together as the Safe Food Coalition are petitioning USDA’s Food Safety and inspection Service for a revised safe handling instruction label for meat, poultry and catfish. The petition calls upon FSIS to continue to require that labels include information about the potential risk of pathogenic contamination in USDA-regulated meat and poultry products while further requiring that labels provide more specific information about safe handling and cooking practices for meat, poultry and catfish products. The Safe Food Coalition, active since 1993, includes the Center for Foodborne Illness, Research and Prevention, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, National Consumers League, STOP Foodborne Illness, and the Government Accountability Project. They describe themselves as representing consumers, public health interests, victims of foodborne illness, and “labor organizations dedicated to reducing the burden of foodborne illnesses in the United States by improving government food inspection programs.” The current Safe Handing Label text as mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Parts 317 and 381, has remained the same since 1994. Here’s what those labels say: Safe Handling Instructions This product was prepared from inspected and passed meat and/or poultry. Some food products may contain bacteria that could cause illness if the product is mishandled or cooked improperly. For your protection, follow these safe handling instructions.

The petition asks for revisions that would require Safe Handling Instruction (SHI) labels to include recommended internal end-point temperatures ― and rest-time requirements that allow for bacteria to die off after cooking ― as well as instructions to use a thermometer to verify internal temperatures, among other information. The petition also requests that USDA require SHI labels for all raw or partially cooked siluriformes fish, including catfish products, which now fall under USDA‘s oversight. USDA catfish inspection began only on March 1, after years of confusion over whether or not 2008 and 2014 farm bill provisions were going to be implemented by FSIS and FDA. The Senate just voted on May 25 to switch catfish inspection back to FDA from USDA. The resolution is now before the House. “Many consumers read the current labels and think they know what ‘cook thoroughly‘ means, but the research shows there is a lot of confusion out there,” said Patricia Buck, executive director for the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention. “Using a thermometer to verify the internal temperature of meat, poultry and catfish products is one of the most important ways to avoid a foodborne illness, and the labels should reflect that fact.” The petitioners say their proposed changes are backed up by research on consumer behavior in the kitchen and grocery store in addition to laboratory studies on the survival rates of pathogens at specific end-point temperatures. Thomas Gremillion, director of Food Policy at Consumer Federation of America, says remaking the Safe Handling Labels will lead to more informed consumer choices that will benefit public health and the food system as a whole. This is the current safe handling label example from USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service. While the Safe Handling Label has gone unchanged for 22 years, it’s been the subject of fairly frequent academic research. One 1998 study found the trouble consumers were having with the label was “trouble reading the food labels” because the type was too small for those with poor eyesight uncorrected by eyeglasses. Those researchers found improved underlining of storage temperatures, widespread use of cooking thermometers and larger type would reduce foodborne illness, especially among the elderly living independently. The petition recognizes those concerns by calling for the “use of easily legible type located away from curved or seamed areas of the packages” and the use of bold or large type for end-point temperatures and “rest-time” instructions.” As for what they want that larger type to cover, the groups are calling for more specific information on safe handling practices for meat, poultry and catfish products such as:

An end-point temperature for raw and partially cooked product categories (intact meats, non-intact meats, poultry, catfish), as well as any “rest-time” requirement;

Instructions to use a thermometer to verify the product has reached the recommended internal temperature;

Information on safe handling practices to minimize risks associated with improper sanitation, handling, storage, and temperature control for meat, poultry and catfish products;

The four core “Check your steps” safe food handling graphics featured on the www.foodsafety.gov website, instead of the graphics currently displayed; and

A web address on the package for additional information on meat, poultry and catfish cooking recommendations.

Correction: The name of the organization sponsoring the petition is the Safe Food Coalition. It was incorrectly stated in an earlier version of this story. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, clickhere.)

]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/06/food-safety-coalition-says-safe-handling-labels-need-a-rewrite/feed/0Report Ranks Antibiotics Policies at Fast Food Chainshttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/report-ranks-antibiotics-policies-at-fast-food-chains/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/report-ranks-antibiotics-policies-at-fast-food-chains/#respondWed, 16 Sep 2015 05:03:42 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=117312Continue Reading]]>Only Chipotle and Panera get an A grade on antibiotics policies and sourcing practices, and most other fast food chains fail, according to a report by the Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Keep Antibiotics Working, Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, and Food Animal Concerns Trust. Chick-fil-a gets a B, while Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s get Cs. The companies were rated on the quality of their policy, whether their policy applies to all types of meat, the availability of the meat produced without routine antibiotics, whether their programs are audited by a third party, whether the policy is available to the public, and whether the company responded to the report survey. Subway, Wendy’s, Burger King, Denny’s, Domino’s Pizza and Starbucks managed to get at least one point in the report ranking. The other 14 chains on the list failed to get any points at all. Some notes from the report include:

Panera Bread and Chipotle Mexican Grill report that they currently offer an array of meat options produced without the routine use of antibiotics, including pork and beef.

Chick-fil-A, the largest U.S. chicken chain by domestic sales volume, has committed to serve 100-percent no-antibiotics chicken by 2019 and indicates that, as of March 2015, 20 percent of its chicken meets this standard.

Although Dunkin’ Donuts adopted good policies that apply to all meat served, it has not made public a timetable for when suppliers must meet company requirements, and it is unclear how much, if any, meat served in its restaurants meets policy specifications.

McDonald’s received fewer points because routine use of antibiotics is still allowed for “disease prevention” in the production of its pork and beef, and the company is not publicly reporting on the current percentage of poultry served that is raised without routine antibiotics.

Subway made news last month with its announcement of a new antibiotics use policy, but it’s unclear whether the policy entails the end of all routine antibiotic use in its supply chains.

To restaurants, the authors of the report say to take cues from Chipotle and Panera. To consumers, they say, “Your choice and your voice matter,” and suggest finding local restaurants that buy more sustainably produced meat. “I want to thank these great organizations for the work they have done to highlight fast food company policies and honor those which made the grade,” Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said in response to the report. “The companies that have failed to change their practices should examine this report and immediately make the change that the American public is demanding. Lives literally depend on it.” (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/09/report-ranks-antibiotics-policies-at-fast-food-chains/feed/0Managing for Salmonella in 2015 Continues to Present Challengeshttps://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/managing-for-salmonella-in-2015/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/managing-for-salmonella-in-2015/#commentsFri, 05 Jun 2015 05:01:03 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=112521Continue Reading]]>Despite decades of efforts to control contamination rates, Salmonella has long been the most common illness-causing bacteria in food, and it remains the leading cause of death and hospitalization from foodborne illness in the U.S. Today, Salmonella is still one of the top food safety concerns for the food industry, government regulators, and consumer advocates, and it’s regularly the leading topic at food safety conferences, including the National Food Policy Conference, which recently hosted a panel discussion on the latest attempts to manage the threat of Salmonella.One thing that makes Salmonella so challenging is that we’re still discovering new serotypes all the time, said Dr. David Goldman, chief medical officer at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Salmonella is represented by about 2,500 serotypes, 60 percent of which cause illness in humans. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is still discovering new Salmonella serotypes on almost a weekly basis, Goldman said. At the same time, Salmonella outbreaks are continually linked to food products previously not associated with the bug. Just in 2014, Salmonella outbreaks were traced back to cucumbers, sprouted chia seeds, and pet bearded dragons, to name a few. Health officials have been working for decades to get Salmonella infection rates under control, but with little to show for it. In 2000, the federal government set a goal of reducing Salmonella infection rates from the 18 in 100,000 people it affected in 1987. They were successful, taking measures that lowered that rate to 13.6 per 100,000 by 2000. But they might have been too quick to celebrate. For 2010, the feds set a very optimistic goal of 6.8 Salmonella cases per 100,000. Instead, the rate went back up to 15 per 100,000. Now, the health objective for 2020 is 11.4 cases per 100,000 — a 20-percent reduction from the 15.2 per 100,000 seen in 2013. By comparison, rates of E. coli O157:H7 have steadily declined through years of intervention measures, dropping in 2013 to around 30 percent of the rates seen in 1996. USDA-regulated foods — namely poultry, beef and pork — account for roughly 34 percent of all recorded Salmonella cases. As a result, in 2011, USDA set stricter performance standards for Salmonella in poultry. Eighty percent of chicken purchased by consumers is in cut-up parts, which previously did not have performance standards. USDA found that about 24 percent of chicken parts carried Salmonella and proposed measures to reduce that to 15.4 percent in chicken parts and 13.5 percent in ground turkey. Now the agency is considering Salmonella performance standards for ground beef and pork cuts as well. Comparing the struggle to control Salmonella to efforts that successfully led to E. coli reductions, it’s important to understand that Salmonella simply behaves in ways that make it more difficult to control, said Scott Eilert, vice president of food safety, quality and regulatory for Cargill Inc. With E. coli, the main food safety lesson is simple: Keep the meat clean, Eilert said, meaning that the most important measure is ensuring that fecal material from the intestines doesn’t contaminate the carcass. With Salmonella, it isn’t that simple. The bug can transfer to the lymph nodes of cattle, or into the inner tissues of a broiler bird. Learning from previous ground turkey recalls, Cargill now tests all of its ground turkey for Salmonella before sending it out to stores. If the levels pass a threshold the company considers too dangerous, the turkey is diverted to a product line that gets cooked before reaching the marketplace. The company is continually looking for similar strategies with other products to drive down the chances of encountering a Salmonella problem, Eilert said. But because Salmonella in poultry is considered a natural hazard — unlike E. coli in ground beef, which is considered an adulterant — no companies are currently required to take the measures that Cargill does to help prevent their customers from being sickened. USDA can’t do anything to stop companies in the event of a severe Salmonella contamination, either. That’s why Foster Farms chicken was able to sicken hundreds of customers with Salmonella over a 17-month period in 2013 and 2014 — no one could order them to stop over Salmonella, and the company didn’t volunteer to do so. Of course, consumer groups are pushing for USDA and Congress to do more. For one, many are urging the agency to give adulterant status to the most virulent strains of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella. They’re also pushing for Congress to grant USDA the authority to issue recalls over Salmonella outbreaks. “That would go a long way toward giving the USDA the ability to deal with situations like what we saw during the Foster Farms outbreak,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, the nonprofit arm of Consumer Reports. Failing that, the U.S. poultry industry could always try following Denmark’s lead. After accepting its serious Salmonella problem some 25 years ago, the country developed a Salmonella action plan to tackle it head-on. The original goal was to reduce rates of the bug in flocks to 5 percent, but that was soon revised to a zero-tolerance level for Salmonella. And it actually worked. “In 2002, the plan was handed over to the industry, who continue to finance and administer the plan,” said Anna de Klauman, minister councilor for food and agriculture at the Danish Embassy in Washington, D.C. “We’ve had no record of Salmonella in Danish broilers in the past three years.”
]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/managing-for-salmonella-in-2015/feed/1Coming USDA Catfish Inspections Raise Question: Could Shrimp Be Next?https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/04/coming-usda-catfish-inspections-raises-question-could-shrimp-be-next/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/04/coming-usda-catfish-inspections-raises-question-could-shrimp-be-next/#commentsThu, 23 Apr 2015 05:03:59 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=110428Continue Reading]]>If food safety put catfish under USDA inspection, can shrimp be far behind? That question is coming into focus this week after one of USDA’s top two food safety officials told a gathering of food policy wonks on Tuesday that the final rule for the agency’s takeover of catfish inspections is coming “a little into May.” And tomorrow, the focus will turn to the alleged dangers and the light testing of foreign shrimp. Brian Ronholm, one of the two deputy under secretaries of food safety at USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), told attendees at the National Food Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., that the final catfish rule “is virtually done” and likely to emerge from FSIS by early May. USDA had previously said it was expected in April, but Ronholm said the timing “might bleed a little into May.” Ronholm, who shares his food safety title with Al Almanza, said existing FSIS personnel will be shifted to handle the catfish inspections. Little else is known outside USDA on how catfish will actually be inspected by the agency. In recent times, no issue advanced in the name of food safety has come in for more criticism than moving catfish inspections from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to USDA’s inspection portfolio. Skeptics of the move — such as U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — are concerned because the switch actually sets up “dual jurisdiction” between USDA and FDA. Gavin Gibbons, spokesman for the National Fisheries Institute, which represents the imported seafood industry, is quick to point out that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) “has called the USDA catfish program a waste 9 times” and each time called upon Congress to repeal it. “It was put in place as part of the 2008 Farm Bill, and (USDA) has spent more than $20 million tax dollars and never inspected a single fish,” Gibbons told Food Safety News. “Yet imported and domestic catfish and catfish-like species are just as safe as they were before the program was implemented.” Whether it’s catfish or pangasius, a cousin mostly raised in Vietnam, the flaky white fish is now the sixth most popular seafood in the U.S. Domestic catfish farmers first pushed back their imported competition in 2002 by getting Congress to prohibit the Asian products from being called “catfish.” The coming USDA catfish inspections have Asian interests such as the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers mighty concerned. That’s because the move could shut Vietnamese pangasius out of the U.S. market entirely, at least for a while. Vietnam would then have to win certification that its food safety system for the fish is equal to that provided by USDA, just as is now required for those who want to export meat, poultry or eggs to the U.S. U.S. catfish farmers, who have seen the amount of catfish sold to processors decline in 2012 to a little more than 300 million pounds, or 360 million pounds less than 10 years earlier, would welcome being without the competition, even for a time. (Most of the U.S. catfish industry is found in Mississippi, which led the nation in farm-raised catfish in 2013 with 275 catfish farms and sales valued at $179.2 million.) Imports dominate the American seafood diet, and shrimp might be the next species coming in for special attention. Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports (CR), will be out Friday with a new report on frozen shrimp. Imports of that product now account for 94 percent of U.S. consumption. The report is embargoed, but CR’s concerns about foreign shrimp are great enough that it will recommend that its readers buy only “responsibly-caught” U.S. wild shrimp “when possible.” It will also point to how rare FDA inspections are of imported shrimp, a criticism catfish farmers have often made about their foreign competition. Just the notice of the embargoed report was enough to send NFI’s Gibbons to his Twitter account to begin one of his well-known counter-offensives. “We’ve been tweeting about this pending Consumer Reports story, which of course we can’t comment on until we see, but I can tell you that Consumer Reports has an abysmal track record of reporting on seafood,” Gibbons said. “You’ll remember the Food and Drug Administration blasted Consumer Reports for its August seafood report on tuna, calling CR’s methodology flawed because it overestimates the negative effects and overlooks the strong body of scientific evidence published in the last decade. I am eager to see what level of hyperbole they employ this time,” he said. As for shrimp following catfish down the inspection road, Gibbons does not see it happening. “The only thing the two items have in common is that anti-competition groups have hijacked a food safety narrative and hoodwinked some into believing this is not about excluding imports from the U.S. market,” he said. The NFI spokesman also wonders why CR takes such an “overtly protectionist” stance on shrimp, but not foreign cars and electronics. Support by outside groups for USDA catfish inspection has waned over time, especially as the GAO reports have made the duel jurisdiction issue a prime example of government duplication and waste. However, that’s not to say that catfish is without its own food safety challenges. Auburn University’s College of Agriculture says disease control accounts for 45 percent of the annual catfish losses the farms experience. Most U.S. catfish are raised in earthen ponds with high densities, an environment that allows for the rapid spread of infectious bacteria and the acute outbreaks of diseases that do occur. “The most important infectious diseases for catfish are Enteric Septicemia (ESC) and Columnaris disease,” Auburn reports. “The causal agents for these diseases are Edwardsiella ictaluri and Flavobacterium columnare, respectively.” The university recommends that catfish farmers take steps to avoid expensive losses from the two diseases by using a few cost-effective drugs and improved husbandry practices. Past domestic catfish losses from disease have run as high as $100 million a year. For its part, the U.S. catfish industry continues to pound the drum against “the quality of controversial Vietnamese pangasius,” often sold as basa, tra, and swai. Through the Jackson, MS-based Catfish Institute, the industry is quick to share dispatches about “plummeting” pangasius exports to Europe because of poor quality or a wire service report on slavery and coerced labor in Asian seafood production. Those pangasius exports to the U.S. are now valued at more than $300 million a year, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) first reported March 23, 2015, in the Wall Street Journal. While domestic production was cut in half, 215 million pounds of frozen Asian “catfish” was sold in the U.S. last year, compared to just 7 million pounds 10 years earlier. Most of Vietnam’s pangasius comes from the Mekong River Delta. The stricter USDA regulations on catfish are all but certain to come up in the ongoing negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade treaty.
]]>https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/04/coming-usda-catfish-inspections-raises-question-could-shrimp-be-next/feed/2